The FBI's decision on Clinton's email. Whiskey, tango, foxtrot.

[linderlizzie]

Any thoughts?

I was not surprised and yet still shocked at the same time. How could the FBI spokesman state so much wrongdoing and not recommend charges be brought?

Are we seriously going to have this type of person who is so careless of our security as a presidential candidate? Kind of sad.

[linderlizzie]

Since no one has commented, I'm adding a comment by a Larry Clemons, whom I do not know, and I thought it was a very interesting theory. Here it is....

"Could the Director of the FBI be the hero we all missed?

I watched the briefing and I too was livid at what I heard. I asked all the same questions that everyone's else is asking about how it is the he could recommend that she not be indicted. I agree that the questions are valid and that numerous indictable offenses were detailed but his recommendation for no indictment was the right thing to do. Please hear me out.

The FBI Directors briefing was highly unusual in its specificity with regard to Hillary's actions and that those actions were in violation of the law. WHY was he so detailed and specific? WHY did he, I think deliberately, indict her by the specificity of his comments and then recommend no indictment?

I think it is likely that he was told in no uncertain terms, that a recommendation of "no indictment" would be issued by his office. He decided to fight back by offering the detailed account of her violation of the law as a way of exposing her corruption and the corruption that exists at the highest level of our government.

You see, there was NO spin to his briefing. No attempt to down play the significance of the violations the possibility that foreign entities likely had access to some if not all of the classified information on that server.

Yes, he did say that no reasonable prosecutor would recommend an indictment BUT the explicit details he provided said otherwise. I think that was HIS way of saying that she should be indicted while also telling the American
People exactly what he was told to tell them.

I can think of no other reason for the high level of detail in his briefing. He said himself that his briefing would be unusual and that he had told no one what he was going to say. He agreed to the demands that he recommend no indictment but he was not willing to put the matter to rest as it was hoped he would.

If I am right we'll likely see his resignation in a few days."

If you've read this far, you're showing some genuine interest. I applaud you. 

[lvstephanie]

I too am flummoxed as to why he called for no indictment yet discussed in detail all of the wrongdoings that Hillary and others in the State Dept. had committed. Hopefully his hearing in Congress today will shed more light as to why Hillary should not be indicted yet others that commit similar "mistakes" may very well be.

[lvstephanie]

I've also noticed a lot of the discussion revolves around Hillary's intent. If that's what the recommendation hinges on, then why are there people in jail for gross negligence that never intended the eventual outcome? You often hear about a parent that leaves their child in the car accidentally while they're at work, and come out to find that their child passed away due to the intense heat... I'm sure the parent never intended to kill their child, yet they are still held accountable for their gross neglect of the child. Likewise, Hillary may not have intended to handle sensitive information in such a careless manner, yet the fact that is was done should be enough to prosecute at the very least for negligence.

[danmo783]

So why doesn't Edward Snowden get a pardon? He broke the same laws that fall under treason...

[sfreeman8]

Have a heart. Yesterday it was announced that the State Dept. is now reopening their investigation into the emails. But, then again, we all know how honest that agency is, too.

This was all a set-up.

What disgusted me the most was it was all partisan again. Dems calling it a witch hunt and political stunt, while Republicans asking questions. Quite a few good questions asked of Mr. Comey yesterday. His answers to some of them were disgusting...how intent is the rule of law and Hillary had no intent. That's crap. Like one Rep. asked, does that mean that no one can be brought up on charges if they didn't have intent? Exactly....which means no one in this administration can be brought up on charges because they didn't intend to break the law. How stupid is that argument?

What has to be done is pry loose all those that decided there is no corruption and get them out. One good one would be Elijah Cummings. He's up for re-election this year. He was censured for the IRS scandal because he was a perpetrator who also used the IRS to weed out people who were conservative. There are a couple more but I'm sure everyone knows who they would be.

[danmo783]

Your vote doesn't count anyway don't you know, so vote Gary Johnson!

[Screwedupclick4life337]

That just goes to show you how much they are concern about the world we live in